My objection is that there is no transparency or any clear indication that x% of your donation goes towards 'admin costs' or the fact that govt money (your taxes) goes to staff who have less accountability.

There is no qualm in paying the staff a market rate, but with a non profit objective I don't quite understand how performance is measured.

Can't see how it is a scam - senior roles requiring a high level of experience and sector knowledge will always, and should always, be appropriately rewarded. I'm also not clear as to why you can't measure performance in a not-for-profit sector. There are many ways to measure performance without looking at profit levels - pretty much all public sector roles have their performance measured in terms of their working standards, quality etc - no profit measuring involved.

Are people who work for charities meant to be paid peanuts? Many Chief Execs and similar are running multimillion pound charities, salaries need to reflect that if you want someone of the right calibre to fill the post.

The same can also be said of the public sector btw. Want important services that cost millions to run and have a profound effect on people's lives run properly? Pay accordingly.

Charities are not audited like companies, and the amounts that actually get to the supposed Recipients are sometimes ludicrously rather small given what the chiefs pay themselves - I agree it's a scandal waiting to break.

It does sound like there needs to be more clarity. A 12% pay rise since 2010 when revenue has fallen doesn't sound right to me. Also am I reading it right that when we donate money to charity up to 7% goes to management of the charity and 4% goes to fund raising?

If you want to know about admin costs of any charity look at their accounts; they separate out spend on charitable objectives and on running costs. You can see executive pay in the notes to the accounts: the charity commission website even gives you standardized graphs so you can see the split at a glance. The information is out there, it doesn't need to be 'exposed' and the fact the charity commission had raised concerns shows that it is monitored. There is no widespread scandal.

They are registered with the charity commission which has very strict reporting requirements and accounts and disclosures are required to be prepared in accordance with the Charities SORP, which in my experience, is at least as onerous as companies accounts disclosure requirements.

And in any case, auditing has nothing do with how much the staff are paid. For both charities and companies this has to be disclosed, but the audit has no role in setting any of the rates.

I don't have an issue per se with senior management being paid appropriate wages, but I do have an issue with the fact that when I worked in the charity sector, my pay was about 30% higher for a job that actually involved a lot less work and responsibility than either of the jobs I did before and afterwards - in the commercial sector.

Even now, having been promoted to manager level, my wage is lower than it was at coordinator level at the charity. Not that I think charities should be stingy, but they certainly don't have as keen an eye on the bottom line.

Charities are audited by qualified accountants adhering to charity commission regulations and often companies house requirements too. The bug charities would use auditors from the big accountants firms who have their in specialist charity teams. The accounts show what they spend on charitable objectives.

YANBU. I simply detest it when the executives of these companies (and that is what they are) complain or justify that if they were working in the private sector, they would be paid a lot more for the level of the position they hold. When the truth is that many of them couldn't achieve that level of job in the private sector anyway. Had close experience of this with the husband of a friend of my parents.

For this reason, I am very picky about the charities I choose to donate to.

But where exactly is the accountability? The charities commission has regularly been found wanting. So you'd like the Charity Commission to show/ use more teeth? That would good, though it does seem a bit churlish to complain at the moment when they have raised this as an issue. Or do you have another solution?

Charities have been vigorously resisting being made to be as transparent as companies for years, but there has been a huge growth in charities in the last decade or so precisely because of the obcsuration of their financial affairs.

It's worth looking at the audited accounts and Trustee report on the Charity commission website. I have more issues with how much is spent on marketing. The bigger the charity the higher their non donatable costs will be.

I try and support smaller, local charities where my money makes more of a difference and won't go on sales phone calls and wages.